Through some incredibly persistent sleuthing, consultation with specialists in modern criminal investigative analysis, and a good dose of luck, author Robert Zorn has solved what has been correctly called the crime of the century: the Lindbergh kidnapping.

And so the [Hauptmann] case ended with as many questions open as answered, all of which are laid out in Cemetery John with precision. And then, with new evidence and equal precision, the author proceeds to answer each one.

The Lindbergh kidnapping and aftermath has fascinated people since it occurred in 1936.

According to this book review which appeared on the Daily Caller the full details are now available and the case has been solved.

The reviewer is also quite keen on this work. Some examples: The author has kept that promise [to his father]in a book both judicious and gripping.The term page turner is used too frequently, but Cemetery John is just that. Once you start reading it, you will not stop. This book should be on the top of everyones summer reading list. You wont be disappointed.

For the last umpteen years, everyone who writes a book and wants to sell it about the Lindbergh kidnapping, has wonderfully stumbled onto a new clue that nobody else knows about. LOL Maybe it sells books but not to me.

2
posted on 06/12/2012 4:59:45 PM PDT
by fish hawk
(Religion: Man's attempt to gain salvation or the approbation of God by his own works)

When we were pulling up the carpet after a flood in our Victorian house, there was linoleum tile under the carpet. Under the tile, there were newspapers from 1936 that covered the Lindburgh baby kidnapping in detail. Fascinating read.

3
posted on 06/12/2012 5:01:20 PM PDT
by reaganaut
(Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see")

I am waiting on the definitive book about the Arron Burr Conspiracy, the fake Moon Landing and Sacco-Vanzetti. ...

I am happy for the author to get his book published and hope that the effort gets the reward that it deserves BUT no book, no research EVER satisfies all conspiracy mavens. There is a dark corner in all informed people's psyche that says 'BUT' and nothing will ever quiet that 'BUT' universally.

We like our conspiracies and will never put them down until the vey story disappears into the depths of time. Remember how Hatshepsut becoming Pharaoh? Now that is a real conspiracy ... if you care.

However on the original topic, one of the most eye-raising facts about this story is the change in our legal system. The convicted kidnapper, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, had a six week trial in 1935 and 14 months later was executed. Think of the OJ Simpson trial for comparison 60 years later that took 8 months plus. Now add the fact that today the average execution is carried out about 20 years following the verdict. This disparity is hugh!

9
posted on 06/12/2012 5:45:05 PM PDT
by SES1066
(Government is NOT the reason for my existence!)

My grandad was a reporter for the Journal-American and the first on the scene, even beat the police there. He saw Lindbergh with a flashlight and a shotgun stalking from the area below the window, with murder in his eyes...

The truth is already out on Sacco & Vanzetti. In a book I have on Italian-American anarchism, it is quite clear that they were both involved in the payroll murder. One pulling the trigger, the other helping to finance it. They were moving around dynamite and other explosives the night they were arrested (not getting rid of anarchist “literature.”) One of their cronies was responsible for the horrific attack on Wall St. in 1919. Vanzetti may have killed a priest in the mid-West during WWI. They were two miserable thugs.

The truth is already out on Sacco & Vanzetti. In a book I have on Italian-American anarchism, it is quite clear that they were both involved in the payroll murder. One pulling the trigger, the other helping to finance it. They were moving around dynamite and other explosives the night they were arrested (not getting rid of anarchist “literature.”) One of their cronies was responsible for the horrific attack on Wall St. in 1919. Vanzetti may have killed a priest in the mid-West during WWI. They were two miserable thugs.

Wow! Your grandfather covered the Lindbergh Baby case! I read the Journal-American as a little kid in it’s last few years before it went under. Great paper. Anything else your grandfather said about the case?

Some interesting stories. The nursery’s 2nd story window was open so they couldn’t get Bruno on breaking in. But he had to un-clip some safety pins holding the blanket over the baby. That got him him a breaking and entering charge. My parents had some (business) contact with Hauptman’s widow, years later. She swore her husband was innocent. The story was they had a German visitor who grabbed the child, dropped him by accident, killing him and burying the body, getting the ransom money and leaving the country before things got too hot.

I always thought Hauptman was as guilty as hell. I do remember that the window was open and that a handmade ladder was pressed against the house. The wood of the ladder matched wood in Hauptman’s garage, I believe. I know his widow carried on for years claiming he was innocent and getting some pretty famous people to believe her, too. I ain’t buyin’.

Anyway, how cool to have a granddad who witnessed the “Trial of the Century.”

Another story about my grandfather. His first day as a photographer at the paper, the editors told him to go to Princeton and get a some good shots of Einstein. It was a standing joke to send the cubs down there as Einstein and the university NEVER allowed interviews. In short order, the university administration’s door was slammed in my granddad’s face. As he was walking to his car, he saw a woman sitting and crying. He asked if she was ok. She wanted to make a birthday cake for her father but had no eggs and didn't have a driver's license. Grandad took her to the market. On the way back, he discovered she was Einstein's daughter! She talked to her dad and said, ‘Papa said you can take some pictures but you will have to come along with him in a little boat as he is going fishing.’ When Grandpa returned to the newspaper, the office guys were ribbing him and asked if he got some good photos. He tossed the film on the desk and said, ‘develop this’. In 2 years, he was their chief photographer.

I read Anne Lindbergh’s autobiography and there is just an overwhelming sadness in it. The pages on the kidnapping and its aftermath are quite sad, and, as I recall, she spends the remainder of the book writing about her efforts to learn resignation and acceptance.

20
posted on 06/12/2012 8:32:38 PM PDT
by Melian
("Where will wants not, a way opens.")

The Lindbergh kidnapping and aftermath has fascinated people since it occurred in 1936.

Sorry, you are off by four years. Assuming a kidnapping actually occurred (there are theories that the baby died a few days earlier than reported by other means and that the kidnapping story was concocted by Lindbergh and friends and family as a cover-up), it was on March 1, 1932.

According to this book review which appeared on the Daily Caller the full details are now available and the case has been solved.

I read the Zorn book twice cover-to-cover and am not convinced at all he has solved the case. But I do appreciate the diligence of his work. (I have also read other materials on it in the past and saw the relatively new PBS Nova documentary on the case in which Zorn is a participant.). Zorn states that an erstwhile neighbor of his grandfather and his then teenage father in a German neighborhood in the Bronx, an immigrant by the name of John Knoll (who does not appear in any of the extensive official investigatory records), was the mastermind of the kidnapping and the man known as "Cemetery John," who received ransom money from an intermediary representing Lindbergh in a dark cemetery at night. But in order to implicate Knoll, he asks the reader to make too many leaps of faith, all too numerous to detail here. One of the most glaring is that the man receiving the ransom money ("Cemetery John") is immediately turned into a kidnapper, without considering the possibility that he could have been a clever extortionist, probably one of several in a group, who took advantage of the widely publicized event so as rip off Lindbergh without knowing anything about the fate of the baby.

This is a most fascinating mystery and it's unlikely to ever be solved to the satisfaction of most crime buffs. After all, it still provokes a wide range of opinion after 81 years.

The evidence was overwhelming to the effect that Hauptmann did it. In addition, the jury was overwhelming in weighing his demeanor as that of a guilty man. I saw a film interview of the last surving member of the jury convicting Hauptmann. She reported that the jury had no doubt that Hauptman kidnapped and killed the child, based upon the physical, testimonial and demeanor evidence.

Good circumstantial evidence is more reliable that testimonial evidence and good circumstantial evidence was produced at the trial. As certain as things can be on this earth Bruno Hauptmann was GUILTY!

25
posted on 04/18/2013 4:38:32 PM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

The evidence was overwhelming to the effect that Hauptmann did it. In addition, the jury was overwhelming in weighing his demeanor as that of a guilty man.

(1) As author Zorn and his crime experts agree, it is highly unlikely that the kidnapping - if that's what indeed happened (remember that there have been other theories) - could have been carried out by a single individual. Most feel it would have required three men, which is Zorn's theory. So if Hauptmann did it, he didn't do it alone.

(2) There was hardly any evidence placing Hauptmann at the Lindbergh estate on the night the kidnapping was supposed to have occurred. There was one elderly man with cataracts who had severe visual problems who claimed he saw Hauptmann in the vicinity. Not only was he virtually blind but he was paid off for his testimony. The best point the prosecution made in that regard was a so-called government "wood expert" alleging that a piece of a ladder found at the Lindbergh property matched part of a floorboard found in Hauptmann's attic. Of course, back then, no one would question the honesty and integrity of a government bureaucrat. But no one from the defense team was in Hauptmann's house at the time that matching piece of Wood was supposedly taken.

(3) There is no doubt that Hauptmann was caught passing a bunch of ransom bills and had possession of $14,000 of the total $50,000 in ransom currency. But that makes a good case for extortion, not kidnapping-murder. He could have been an accessory after the fact as part of an extortion gang that took advantage of the well-publicized purported kidnapping. Or he could have purchased that ransom currency at a discount at some point down a chain after it was turned over to "Cemetery John." Any of those scenarios would make him guilty, but of lesser crimes.

A defendant's demeanor shouldn't mean anything to an objective juror. Whether guilty or innocent, it usually is very difficult for any defendant to bear up well against cross-examination by the prosecution. He would generally be anxious or even angry regardless. That's why defense attorneys are usually making a mistake by letting the defendant testify on his own behalf. That's a pretty standard rule these days for the defense. Yet Hauptmann's attorneys back then were foolish enough to put him on the stand.

Oh, I’ll clear up all about Sacco & Vanzetti. Part of an anarchist terrorist group who mailed bombs to various politicians (usually the victim was the servant who answered the door). Sacco was definitely the hit man in the killing of the paymaster, Vanzetti certainly knew about it. His alibi that day is pretty good. He has been accused by another anarchist of murdering a priest in the mid-west when he and S fled to Mexico to avoid WWI.

Michael Boda, their boon companion in arms, drove the horse and carriage loaded with bombs into Wall St in 1919 that killed God knows how many people. Read Paul Avrich’s interviews with really ancient anarchists. They blow the whistle on them.

Demeanor is Evidence. See California Evidence Code section 140 and the cases digested thereat. The section is typical of most states and follows the Common Law.

The controversy over Hauptman started,in the main, with that vacuous being Eleanor Roosevelt who wrote a blurb criticising the fact that circumstantial evidence was used to convict Hauptman.

Good circumstantial evidence is far better than eye witnesses as circumstantial evidence never lies.(Indeed, you claim one of the "eyewitnesses" was near blind and received money.) Once again, as far as man can be sure of anything on this earth, Bruno Hauptman was guilty of the kidnapping and murder of the child.

You liked the book and that is ok, I would point out to you another who dunnit involving the unsolved murder of Hollywood movie director William Desmond Taylor in February 1922. Do a Google search Using Taylorology. Also, WIKI has a good summary under his name of William Desmond Taylor(Not his real name.)

30
posted on 04/19/2013 8:31:57 AM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

Good circumstantial evidence is far better than eye witnesses as circumstantial evidence never lies.

Maybe not, but the witnesses who present the circumstantial evidence and lawyers who evaluate it sometimes do. Problem is that too many jurors accept too much on face value.

I know that Hauptmann may have been seen as a detestable character, but until you can place him on the Lindbergh property on the night of the purported kidnapping, you can't convict him of murder. One other important clue or lack thereof: No fingerprints were found on the ladder or even in the child's nursery.

I never heard of Eleanor Roosevelt's involvement in the Lindbergh case nor what her theory was, but I do know that Gov. Hoffman (Republican) of New Jersey thought that Hauptmann didn't perpetrate the kidnapping, but more likely that the baby died a few days earlier while under the care of his erratic aunt: Ann Lindbergh's older sister. Hoffman maneuvered to delay the execution of Hauptmann for about a year, but ran out of time because of intense political pressure in support of the death penalty for the defendant.

In a just world, Hauptmann should have been acquitted of the murder-kidnapping in New Jersey. and extradited back to New York to face charges of extortion and grand larceny, but the investigation should not have stopped at that point. Even those who believe that Hauptmann was guilty of the murder-kidnapping (like author Robert Zorn) know that he had accomplices. It could not have been a one-man job.

Never heard of the murder of William Desmond Taylor, but thanks for your recommendation.

It may be hard to find now, but there was a book titled "Lindbergh: The Crime," by the late Noel Behn, originally published in 1994 (hardcover edition by Atlantic Monthly Press) and 1995 (paperback edition by Onyx). It goes into a large amount of detail in regard to Gov. Hoffman's unofficial post-trial investigation, which is not to be overlooked.

My grandad was a reporter for the Journal-American and the first on the scene, even beat the police there. He saw Lindbergh with a flashlight and a shotgun stalking from the area below the window, with murder in his eyes...

That info about Lindbergh looking around the premises with his gun is included in several books on the subject. Your grandfather probably included that in his story from the scene. Can you tell us his name?

There are, however, a few researchers who would argue that the kidnapping either never occurred as such or was staged, and that the kidnap story was fabricated to cover-up the reality that Lindbergh or his family was involved in the child's death.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.